3 ms·

> "So why should I not eat them? What kind of superior morality am I supposed to claim for myself to think I'm morally better than a pig? None. A pig would eat

> "So why should I not eat them? What kind of superior morality am I supposed to claim for myself to think I'm morally better than a pig? None. A pig would eat me, so I eat a pig." This just isn't very strong reasoning to me. Pigs and other animals do lots of things you would presumably not do. A pig would also not keep you in a farm to eat later (among many other industrialized things we do to livestock). Just because a pig would do something and is unable to choose does not make that equivalent to you doing the same thing as the pig when you are able to choose. We have the capacity to choose not to eat them and to reduce suffering as a result. That seems like something a more intelligent creature should have as a goal. If we set the bar at what other animals would do if they could, doesn't that justify basically any behavior? Other animals eat their own young sometimes, but if someone used that as a justification to eat their own infant I doubt you'd think that's a good thing. You are not a pig.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
>> Pigs and other animals do lots of things you would presumably not do. Yes, but they also do this thing that I would do. This is why this debate exists in the first place, yes? Because some animals eat other animals and we're that kind of animal. It doesn't matter if some aninmals would, e.g., eat their own excreta, because that is not something that humans do anyway and so there is no reason to discuss whether we should do it too or not. >> A pig would also not keep you in a farm to eat later (among many other industrialized things we do to livestock). I am arguing that if pigs were more intelligent than we are they would do to us exactly what we do to them, including keeping us in farms to eat later etc. >> We have the capacity to choose not to eat them and to reduce suffering as a result. Most animals, particularly pigs, would get eaten by something anyway. By not eating them we are not reducing suffering, we are simply shifting the blame.
- fossuser 6y ago
  > "I am arguing that if pigs were more intelligent than we are they would do to us exactly what we do to them, including keeping us in farms to eat later etc." I don't think this is necessarily true. Throughout our own history humanity has done things we regret and decided were wrong (or are actively fighting against). Slavery, genocide, kings, torture - while struggling towards more just societies based on rule of law and more democratic government. It's quite possible that raising and killing other animals with lots of suffering is something we will regret. It's quite possible that another imaginary species of hyper-intelligent pigs would reach the same conclusion. > "Most animals, particularly pigs, would get eaten by something anyway. By not eating them we are not reducing suffering, we are simply shifting the blame." This is a different argument. Just because other animals that are not humans and don't have the capacity for choice would eat a pig, doesn't mean that humanity contributing to this suffering is the same. I'd also argue we do it at such a scale that it's much worse.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    >> It's quite possible that raising and killing other animals with lots of suffering is something we will regret. I agree it's possible and I believe we should- but what is regretable is the suffering, not the killing.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      I agree with this more than you might think. It’s basically the position I used to hold too. The main issue I have is that I think you can’t get the killing without the suffering. There’s another piece too, about killing intelligent life (even without suffering). Basically the argument I made in a comment above. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26322873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26322873
- bambax 6y ago
  > By not eating them we are not reducing suffering Yes we are. The problem is not just killing animals, it's condemning them to a life of torture. We are doing to animals, on a gigantic scale, what the Nazis did to other humans. We think we are different than the Nazis. But the only way we are different in that we are worse. The Nazis knew that what they were doing was wrong. They went to great lengths to try to hide their crimes, including digging up corpses and burning them when the allies were closing in on them (while they could have fled instead). We, on the other hand, are mostly undisturbed by what we are doing. > Because some animals eat other animals and we're that kind of animal. Some humans do horrible things to other humans, and we are certainly "that kind of animal". So everything's okay, then? We can do anything to anyone because, presumably, they would do the same to us "if they could", if history is any proof. I don't want to live in your world. Yet I know I do.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago

>> Pigs and other animals do lots of things you would presumably not do. Yes, but they also do this thing that I would do. This is why this debate exists in the first place, yes? Because some animals eat other animals and we're that kind of animal. It doesn't matter if some aninmals would, e.g., eat their own excreta, because that is not something that humans do anyway and so there is no reason to discuss whether we should do it too or not. >> A pig would also not keep you in a farm to eat later (among many other industrialized things we do to livestock). I am arguing that if pigs were more intelligent than we are they would do to us exactly what we do to them, including keeping us in farms to eat later etc. >> We have the capacity to choose not to eat them and to reduce suffering as a result. Most animals, particularly pigs, would get eaten by something anyway. By not eating them we are not reducing suffering, we are simply shifting the blame.

fossuser 6y ago
> "I am arguing that if pigs were more intelligent than we are they would do to us exactly what we do to them, including keeping us in farms to eat later etc." I don't think this is necessarily true. Throughout our own history humanity has done things we regret and decided were wrong (or are actively fighting against). Slavery, genocide, kings, torture - while struggling towards more just societies based on rule of law and more democratic government. It's quite possible that raising and killing other animals with lots of suffering is something we will regret. It's quite possible that another imaginary species of hyper-intelligent pigs would reach the same conclusion. > "Most animals, particularly pigs, would get eaten by something anyway. By not eating them we are not reducing suffering, we are simply shifting the blame." This is a different argument. Just because other animals that are not humans and don't have the capacity for choice would eat a pig, doesn't mean that humanity contributing to this suffering is the same. I'd also argue we do it at such a scale that it's much worse.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  >> It's quite possible that raising and killing other animals with lots of suffering is something we will regret. I agree it's possible and I believe we should- but what is regretable is the suffering, not the killing.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    I agree with this more than you might think. It’s basically the position I used to hold too. The main issue I have is that I think you can’t get the killing without the suffering. There’s another piece too, about killing intelligent life (even without suffering). Basically the argument I made in a comment above. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26322873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26322873
bambax 6y ago
> By not eating them we are not reducing suffering Yes we are. The problem is not just killing animals, it's condemning them to a life of torture. We are doing to animals, on a gigantic scale, what the Nazis did to other humans. We think we are different than the Nazis. But the only way we are different in that we are worse. The Nazis knew that what they were doing was wrong. They went to great lengths to try to hide their crimes, including digging up corpses and burning them when the allies were closing in on them (while they could have fled instead). We, on the other hand, are mostly undisturbed by what we are doing. > Because some animals eat other animals and we're that kind of animal. Some humans do horrible things to other humans, and we are certainly "that kind of animal". So everything's okay, then? We can do anything to anyone because, presumably, they would do the same to us "if they could", if history is any proof. I don't want to live in your world. Yet I know I do.